Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
ICCJ_232859 AI generated

Appeal in the interest of the law allowed, establishing mandatory jurisdiction for labor and social insurance courts over pension health contribution restitution claims

Case Number ICCJ_232859
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the appeal in the interest of law filed by the leadership board of the Pitești Court of Appeal, establishing a mandatory, binding rule on jurisdiction that prevails over any conflicting lower-court determinations. The dispute concerned the material competence for adjudicating administrative litigation claims seeking the restitution of social health insurance contributions (CASS) withheld from pensions, brought against the territorial pension house. Relying on the unified interpretation of Article 10 of Law No. 554/2004 on administrative contentious matters and Article 129(1)(e) of Law No. 360/2023 on the public pension system, the court ruled that such claims fall within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance specialized for labor disputes and social insurance matters, rather than general administrative courts.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 129 alin. (1) lit. e) din Legea nr. 360/2023, art. 10 din Legea contenciosului administrativ nr. 554/2004, art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă; Appeal in the interest of the law allowed, establishing mandatory jurisdiction for labor and social insurance courts over pension health contribution restitution claims: The dispute concerned the material competence for adjudicating administrative litigation claims seeking the restitution of social health insurance contributions (CASS) withheld from pensions, brought against the territorial pension house. Relying on the unified interpretation of Article 10 of Law No. 554/2004 on administrative contentious matters and Article 129(1)(e) of Law No. 360/2023 on the public pension system, the court ruled that such claims fall within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance specialized for labor disputes and social insurance matters, rather than general administrative courts.

Keywords

AI generated
jurisdictional matters social insurance dispute claim for contributions interpretation of a judgment pension contributions health insurance

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 129 alin. (1) lit. e) din Legea nr. 360/2023
Cited as the substantive legal provision defining the subject matter jurisdiction for pension-related conflicts.
art. 10 din Legea contenciosului administrativ nr. 554/2004
Cited as the primary basis for establishing the material jurisdictional competence for the dispute.
art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă
Cited to establish the mandatory and binding nature of the decision issued in the appeal in the interest of law.
AI generated
ICCJ_234633
Material jurisdiction for restitution of health insurance contributions withheld from pensions: social insurance disputes vs. administrative fiscal litigation
Decizia nr. 3940/2023
Jurisdiction for pension contribution recovery disputes: Specialized labor court competence over general administrative jurisdiction
Decizia nr. 4379/2023
Jurisdictional competence for pensioner damages action challenging unconstitutional health insurance levy on pensions
Decizia nr. 5874/2023
Confiscation of pension contributions: jurisdiction assigned to Court of Appeal over conflict with Labor Tribunal
Decizia nr. 1812/2024
Jurisdiction over pension restitution claims for contributions voided by unconstitutional ordinance: Central authority defendant triggers appellate administrative jurisdiction

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
art. 10 din Legea contenciosului administrativ nr. 554/2004

Cited as the primary basis for establishing the material jurisdictional competence for the dispute.

art. 129 alin. (1) lit. e) din Legea nr. 360/2023

Cited as the substantive legal provision defining the subject matter jurisdiction for pension-related conflicts.

art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă

Cited to establish the mandatory and binding nature of the decision issued in the appeal in the interest of law.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

ROMÂNIA

ÎNALTA CURTE DE CASAŢIE ŞI JUSTIŢIE

Completul pentru soluționarea recursului în interesul legii

Minuta deciziei nr.4 Dosar nr. 2340/1/2025

Şedinţa din 23 februarie 2026

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

DECIDE:

Admite recursul în interesul legii formulat de Colegiul de conducere al Curții de Apel Piteşti şi, în consecinţă, stabileşte că:

În interpretarea şi aplicarea unitară a dispozițiilor art. 10 din Legea contenciosului administrativ nr. 554/2004, cu modificările şi completările ulterioare și art. 129 alin. (1) lit. e) din Legea nr. 360/2023 privind sistemul public de pensii, competența materială de soluționare a litigiilor având ca obiect restituirea sumelor reprezentând contribuții de asigurări sociale de sănătate (CASS), reținute din pensii, cereri formulate în contradictoriu cu casa teritorială de pensii, revine tribunalului-secției/completului specializat pentru cauze privind conflicte de muncă și asigurări sociale.

Obligatorie, conform art. 517 alin. (4) din Codul de procedură civilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică astăzi, 23 februarie 2026.